PetKal wrote:
Good show, the lens is quite nice for handheld photography, so much so that mine has never been on a pod ever since I've gotten it almost a year ago. When you support it by its foot, you will notice how rear heavy it is whith a camera mounted. That "imbalance" is actually an additional asset for hand-held use...making it easier. Otherwise, there is nothing unique or special about it except in AF responsiveness, but we might talk about it later.

Even my wife, who's very petite managed to hand hold for a little bit Maybe I should leave the pod.... I'll be walking a fair distance tomorrow, not a major hike but enough. I should see plenty of Red Deer and Wildfowl. Do you think carrying the 5D3/500 ii on a black Rapid strap is viable? I've not heard of anyone using it to carry a supertele.

Bones74 wrote:
Do you think carrying the 5D3/500 ii on a black Rapid strap is viable? I've not heard of anyone using it to carry a supertele.

Stu, I do not know, never had that kinda strap. However, I am very satisfied with the new Canon wide lens strap. When I am ready to fire, the lens is hanging either from my neck or from my shoulder by its strap, and also held in my hands ready to be deployed within a second or so.

PetKal wrote:
Stu, I do not know, never had that kinda strap. However, I am very satisfied with the new Canon wide lens strap. When I am ready to fire, the lens is hanging either from my neck or from my shoulder by its strap, and also held in my hands ready to be deployed within a second or so.

Thanks Peter. I was just experimenting; I can use the black rapid strap, which is obviously cross body, as well as the Canon strap. That way the lens is doubly secure. I'll take the monopod just in case I need to give any would be mugger a serious beating

Bones74 wrote:
Thanks Peter. I was just experimenting; I can use the black rapid strap, which is obviously cross body, as well as the Canon strap. That way the lens is doubly secure. I'll take the monopod just in case I need to give any would be mugger a serious beating

You hang the lens from your neck?? You must have a neck like a bull![/quote]

"About as sharp as the original superteles." - that's my criteria.
"The focus was brilliant-on a 1DX." - I take that to mean fast and precise/consistent - sounds great!

4kg might be heavy for all you 500/4 shooters, but it's a 1.3kg drop from my 400 IS v.1, and about par for v.2. I'll take the flexibility of the zoom! It's also narrower than the 400/2.8 so will fit better in the Pelican 1510. I'm less concerned about it being front heavy since it will be 99% monopod use, though actual use will be the final judge.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm sure it really is worth 8x the price of the 100-400L or 2x the Nikon's 200-400 f/4 price. Seriously!

I have only casually used the 100-400. My impression of it was it's not 'prime-sharp' w/o at 400mm and AF isn't super speedy. Not sure if this jives with those who own one? It would seem to be a great photojournalism lens with occasional sports use. While I can live with f/4 for indoor/night events on a 1DX, f/5.6 would be pushing it. Maybe the mkII version will be more prime-like, but will certainly cost over $2500.

I guess I could buy a Nikon 200-400 with a used D3s and still come out ahead for price, but have read the 200-400 is not so hot at 400mm at farther subject distances, which certainly must further deteriorate with TC use. But then, that doesn't seem to discourage its use at sports events I've covered... It would be interesting to see what Nikon would charge for a significantly revised version of the 200-400, in light of their 800/5.6...

Bones74 wrote:
Thanks Peter. I was just experimenting; I can use the black rapid strap, which is obviously cross body, as well as the Canon strap. That way the lens is doubly secure. I'll take the monopod just in case I need to give any would be mugger a serious beating

I have my Black Rapid strap connected to an O-ring. From that I have two straps connected to the lens lugs, with a smaller safety strap from the O-ring to the Black Rapid tripod lug on the camera body. If the lens and body should accidentally separate, neither will hit the ground.

Imagemaster wrote:
I have my Black Rapid strap connected to an O-ring. From that I have two straps connected to the lens lugs, with a smaller safety strap from the O-ring to the Black Rapid tripod lug on the camera body. If the lens and body should accidentally separate, neither will hit the ground.

Cheers, I used the black rapid RS7 with the O-ring screwed into the pod mount + the 500's own wide strap and it was great. The lens felt very secure. I walked and shot for about 4 miles in total and shot everything handheld (Do ya hear that Peter? ). Needless to say I am completely head over heels for this lens It is incredible on my 5D3, even with the 1.4 x ii ext. 200-400L be d@mned!

PetKal wrote:
Stu, 500 II can be considered quite user friendly and readily portable, in fact it is similar in weight to my old 500 f/4.5L which I liked a lot too. Glad to hear that you like it.

Oh I do like it! A plan must be made to purchase this thing Actually having pixel peeped the RAW files I can notice a bit of degradation with the 1.4 x ext ii mounted. If I do buy a 500 ii I'll get a 1.4 x iii too. Thanks for your input

mcbane wrote:
That was a long video but it didnt provide even basic info re: the zoom mechanism. Is this built like the 70-200 mkii, which doesnt change length during zoom, or is it a dust pump like the 100-400?

Bones74 wrote:
Oh I do like it! A plan must be made to purchase this thing Actually having pixel peeped the RAW files I can notice a bit of degradation with the 1.4 x ext ii mounted. If I do buy a 500 ii I'll get a 1.4 x iii too. Thanks for your input

Stu, I believe that 1.4xTC MkIII will yield better image quality than 1.4xTC MkII, although I have also seen some fine results obtained with the latter on 500 f/4 IS MkI.
All in all, 1.4xTC MkIII is by far most cost effective investment into your long range photography, once you own 500 II. The IQ degradation is minor, and it usually becomes swamped by other human, environmental and gear factors.

Many miss the point here, it is for the most part a comparison between a zoom and one of Canons best primes. So many people forget that certain landscapes really benefit from exact cropping, especially when one is using so few pixels. Thats why this video is from one of Australia's better known landscape people.

And in certain sports, if you care about $, you don't cut the legs off horses or the wheels of the car.

For the first time with Canon you have a single lens that's as good at 300mm and f4 as the 300 f2.8 (older version) and its also better than the Nikon from about 2/3rd out at all focal lengths. And it is indeed (prototype at least) shorter and lighter than the Nikon, although chubby.

For Canon users, (if price were not an issue) you have a very flexible and long term investment that will make you money and produce vastly more keepers. Its the universal super tele with very few drawbacks.(if prototype is same as production)

PetKal wrote:
Stu, I believe that 1.4xTC MkIII will yield better image quality than 1.4xTC MkII, although I have also seen some fine results obtained with the latter on 500 f/4 IS MkI.
All in all, 1.4xTC MkIII is by far most cost effective investment into your long range photography, once you own 500 II. The IQ degradation is minor, and it usually becomes swamped by other human, environmental and gear factors.

Absolutely, and with the TC attached I had to use higher ISO, often 4000 and above. The light was not great when I had the TC attached, even so I was mighty impressed. I'm probably hijacking this thread a bit so once I have processed and posted images to flickr I'll start my own thread. I will purchase the 1.4 iii though Mastering BIF at 700mm will take a lot of practice